Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Normanby Island, Milne Bay Province, PNG, where the proposed project is situated, has high levels of terrestrial vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant endemism. The Bwebweso site also harbors a unique plant community due to the underlying ultramafic bedrock on which it is located. If extended to further into the East Papuan Islands, the project would include many other sites of high endemism and biodiversity.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Indeed, the online scoring tool map depicts a rate > 150 t/ha, which shows that the area is highly important for climate mitigation.
Evidence B:PNG, as one of the three remaining recognized global tropical wilderness areas, is an important player in climate mitigation. The forest on Bwebweso is largely intact at this point, but under threat from mining exploration.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:PNG law, both its constitution and legislation, recognizes local land and resource tenure and gives management rights to local clans and communities. However, while surface resources are held under traditional tenure systems, underground minerals remain the property of the national government. However, local landowners would have a significant say in any prospective development of a mine in the area.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The EoI clearly explains the importance of the BWEBWESO area as it is essential to the protection of the local cultural heritage environment (archaeological and oral tradition) as well as biodiversity and wildlife.
Evidence B:The Bwebweso site is considered sacred by surrounding clans and communities as the place where the spirits of their dead go to rest. As such, its destruction would have both cultural and biodiversity implications.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: In accordance with the data available on the CI database, it will rank the project as a Medium-high threat. Currently, there are development pressures that compromise the region. This also includes logging, subsistence gardening extension, and road development, among others.
Evidence B:Proposed prospecting for nickel ore and any possible mining activity would be extremely detrimental to the landscape and its biodiversity and to the surrounding waterways and marine habitats, which would be impacted by siltation from mining activities.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There are still several challenges and conflicts between customary law and statutory law as well as which law would govern the relations between IPCLs and colonisers in respect to the land and its resources.
Evidence B:Legal frameworks exist that support the preservation of cultural and sacred sites in PNG, but the regulatory structures that enable such legislation to be easily administered appear to be somewhat lacking, hence this project’s proposal to test means of enabling communities to more easily register their sacred sites.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There is legal recognition of the importance of the area and the communities living there. However, there is no provided evidence of active government support and engagement in the promotion of IPLC-led conservation initiatives.
Evidence B:The ECA has a current MOU with the Milne Bay Province government and works closely with affected communities.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:There is a lengthy history of IPLC-led conservation projects in Papua New Guinea and Milne Bay Province. However, this project with its focus on securing protection for sacred sites as a means of conservation appears to be new.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As noted in D above, this project appears to be unique. However, the existing conservation work with IPLC communities by ECA should complement this proposal.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The project will carry a valuable cultural heritage outcome that would enable and contribute to improvements in sustainable management and conservation of the islands’ environments.
Evidence B:The project’s aim to strengthen IPLC communities’ ability to secure formal protection for sacred sites and thereby conserve the biodiversity resources on those sites seems very well aligned with ICI objectives. In particular, the project seeks to prove the efficacy its proposed methodology as a precursor to expanding its use across PNG.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The activities described to collect and register information on sacred sites in the East Papuan Islands are well defined, but a more detailed timeline would be helpful. It is assumed that the described activities are ongoing and overlapping in the various communities in the region, but it would be wise to begin in one locale, see what works/what doesn’t work, then expand into adjoining areas and communities. This is probably what is planned, but it needs to be better described.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As described, the activities under this proposal would appear to provide local communities with the means to register their sacred sites with the government in a way that has a long-term impact on their preservation. By providing a means to record (both verbally and in writing) and preserve the stories and significance of sacred sites, the project enhances the ability of those communities to forestall future threats to those sites integrity, including from internal disputes over their cultural relevance.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The amount of investment required depends on the scope of the project. If it expands significantly into the islands beyond Normanby, as proposed, the budget is well aligned.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The EOI describes in-kind support from both participating communities and the Milne Bay Provincial Government. Moderate funding is also available from a US-based foundation.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The project projects impacts on 50,000 ha, particularly if expanded beyond the Bwebweso site on Normanby into adjoining East Papuan Islands.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The indicators primarily focus on successful completion of the activities, but it would be ideal if they also focused on any measurable increase in site preservation resulting from the activities to record and register information on sacred sites.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The project makes a convincing argument that sacred site preservation/conservation can be secured and over the long-term through the recording of oral histories around sacred sites and preservation of those histories for future generations that might otherwise have lost the reasons for saving such culturally relevant sites. Once established, the method by which these histories are preserved should gain a footing beyond the scope of this project.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:PNG has not yet revised its NBSAP in accordance with the Aichi Targets. However, in lieu of a revised PNG NBSAP, this project does align with several of the Aichi Targets.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Even though the project emphasises inclusivity by opening up participation for women, through the sections there is no clear information regarding culture difference, gender barriers, and how the project will address these issues when working with communities to preserve cultural heritage. There is a lack of information development.
Evidence B:Many of the Milne Bay cultures are matrilineal and women have a stake thereby in resource decisions on ancestral lands. The project also is structured to ensure that women partake in the preservation of cultural knowledge; that their own histories and stories are preserved alongside those of the men in their communities. The description of how these stories are gathered and preserved is both culturally sensitive and well thought out.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:If successful, the project has a very high potential for impacting the preservation of sacred sites well beyond the confines of Milne Bay Province. PNG has thousands of such sites across the country, and if this model of capturing and preserving oral histories works in Milne Bay, it should be transferrable to other parts of the country, as well.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:While this project has relevant support from both the Milne Bay Government and local communities, ECA is not specifically an IPLC organization. It is led by David Mitchell, who has PNG citizenship and has lived in Milne Bay for decades, but he is not native. Other staff members are from Milne Bay. However, while ECA provides the “spark” and the technical means for this project, for it to be successful, local communities must have complete buy-in and take the lead on its implementation. As described, that is what the project proposes to do.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has a long history of working with communities in Milne Bay Province on a variety of conservation-related issues and challenges. It has staff from Milne Bay, support from the Milne Bay Government, and local communities, all of whom are long-term collaborators on its work.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As noted in B above, ECA has a long history of working with local communities in Milne Bay Province on conservation issues. No progress can be made on conservation without the full embrace of local communities/clans, as they hold tenure rights to all resources on their traditional lands and make all decisions about resource management. Without strong partnerships with IPLCs, ECA could not operate successfully in Milne Bay or anywhere else in PNG.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has implemented GEF projects in the past and has demonstrated skill sets necessary to implement the proposed course of work in this EOI.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:ECA has a moderately diversified funding stream. However, it has no current projects over $200K, and it only conducts financial audits upon request from its funders. I believe that the organization would require some enhanced project management capacity, particularly in financial management, in order to fully meet GEF reporting and management requirements. However, it should be possible to address that through the budget.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The organization has extensive experience with implementing GEF projects.